R. v. Mkhandi s/o Kisoli Crim. Sass. 151-Singida 70; 30/9/71; Mnzavas J.

 

R. v. Mkhandi s/o Kisoli Crim. Sass. 151-Singida 70; 30/9/71; Mnzavas J.

The accused was charged with the murder of his father. There was evidence that deceased and accused had frequently quarreled over land and cattle and a few days before accused had threatened to kill the deceased. The only other evidence implicating the accused was a statement by the deceased just before his death naming the accused as his assailant.

Held: (1) “From the evidence there can be no doubt that there was darkness in the room when the deceased was attacked. There was darkness in the room when the deceased was attacked. In R. v. Ramadhani Hirandu (1934) E. A. C. A. p. 39, where similar conditions were present it was held that ‘particular caution must be exercised when an attack takes place in darkness when identification of the assailant is usually more difficult than in daylight’”. (2) “In R. v. Rutema Nzungu (1967) H. C. D. case No. 445 a case which is on all fours with this one Mustaf J. (as he then was) had this to say – “It is a rule of practice that

            There must be corroboration of a dying declaration …………. It seems unlikely that either the deceased or the other witnesses had adequate opportunity to recognize the accused and there is no adequate corroboration.” (3) The accused was acquitted.